TY - JOUR
T1 - External versus internal cardioversion for atrial fibrillation
T2 - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
AU - Aggarwal, Gaurav
AU - Anantha-Narayanan, Mahesh
AU - Robles, Julian
AU - Bandyopadhyay, Dhrubajyoti
AU - Abed, Mary
AU - Henry, Brandon Michael
AU - Aggarwal, Saurabh
AU - Alla, Venkata
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often require rhythm control strategy for amelioration of symptoms. It is unclear if there is any difference between external cardioversion (ECV) and internal cardioversion (ICV) for successful conversion of AF to normal sinus rhythm. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating success of cardioversion using ECV versus ICV. Results: In the pooled analysis of 5 RCTS, there was no difference in success of cardioversion using ECV versus ICV (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.24–11.83, p = 0.6). In the subgroup analysis, there was no difference between ECV and direct electrode ICV (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09–1.83, p = 0.24). However, ECV was significantly better compared with ICV using ICD (OR 11.97, 95% CI 1.87–76.73, p = 0.009). Conclusions: There was no difference between ECV versus ICV in effectiveness for termination of AF. Larger well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.
AB - Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often require rhythm control strategy for amelioration of symptoms. It is unclear if there is any difference between external cardioversion (ECV) and internal cardioversion (ICV) for successful conversion of AF to normal sinus rhythm. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating success of cardioversion using ECV versus ICV. Results: In the pooled analysis of 5 RCTS, there was no difference in success of cardioversion using ECV versus ICV (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.24–11.83, p = 0.6). In the subgroup analysis, there was no difference between ECV and direct electrode ICV (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09–1.83, p = 0.24). However, ECV was significantly better compared with ICV using ICD (OR 11.97, 95% CI 1.87–76.73, p = 0.009). Conclusions: There was no difference between ECV versus ICV in effectiveness for termination of AF. Larger well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088801356&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088801356&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10840-020-00836-5
DO - 10.1007/s10840-020-00836-5
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85088801356
JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
SN - 1383-875X
ER -